How Do Patients Contribute to Signal Detection? A Retrospective Analysis of Spontaneous Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the UK's Yellow Card Scheme

被引:60
|
作者
Hazell, Lorna [1 ,2 ]
Cornelius, Victoria [1 ,2 ]
Hannaford, Philip [3 ]
Shakir, Saad [1 ,2 ]
Avery, Anthony J. [4 ]
机构
[1] Drug Safety Res Unit, Southampton SO31 1AA, Hants, England
[2] Univ Portsmouth, Sch Pharm & Biomed Sci, Portsmouth, Hants, England
[3] Univ Aberdeen, Inst Appl Hlth Sci, Aberdeen, Scotland
[4] Univ Nottingham, Sch Med, Div Primary Care, Nottingham, England
关键词
PROFESSIONALS;
D O I
10.1007/s40264-013-0021-2
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background In 2005, spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) was extended to include patient reports. Here, we investigate the potential pharmacovigilance impact of patient reporting. Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the relative contribution of patient reporting to signal detection through disproportionality analysis. Methods Data were analysed from all reports submitted directly to the YCS between October 2005 and September 2007. Three datasets of drug-ADR pairs were created: one for patient reports, one for healthcare professional (HCP) reports and one for all reports combined. The proportional reporting ratio (PRR) method was used to identify signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) in each dataset. The number of SDRs identified from patient and HCP reports were compared, as well as the type of ADR and suspect drug involved. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine how combining the patient and HCP reports may affect the SDRs identified. Results Data were received for 5,180 patient and 20,949 HCP reports, relating to 16,566 and 28,775 drug-ADR pairs, respectively, with 4,340 (10.6 %) pairs found in both datasets. A significantly higher proportion of the SDRs identified from HCP reports involved reactions classified as serious by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), compared with patient reports (n = 931, 48.0 % vs. n = 185, 28.5 %), or involved newly marketed drugs (n = 596, 30.7 % vs. n = 71, 10.9 %). The proportion of SDRs assessed as not listed on the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) was similar in each group (similar to 15 %, based on a random sample). After combining the patient and HCP reports, 278 (similar to 11 %) of the SDRs identified when each group was analysed separately no longer met the SDR criteria, including 12 potentially serious ADRs not listed on the product's SPC. On the other hand, the combined dataset identified an additional 508 SDRs that were not identified when patient or HCP reports were analysed separately. Approximately 10 % (n = 47) of these additional SDRs were assessed as serious ADRs and were not listed on the product's SPC. Conclusions Although this study is limited to the UK experience, overall, the results suggest that patient reporting may provide a positive complementary contribution to that of HCPs. Patient reporting may make an important contribution to drug safety by identifying different SDRs not identified from HCP reports alone. The combination of reports from patients and HCPs, however, when used for the purposes of signal detection through disproportionality analysis, may result in the loss of some information. One possible strategy is to conduct such analyses using reports from patients and HCPs combined, as well as separately for each group.
引用
收藏
页码:199 / 206
页数:8
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] How Do Patients Contribute to Signal Detection?A Retrospective Analysis of Spontaneous Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme
    Lorna Hazell
    Victoria Cornelius
    Philip Hannaford
    Saad Shakir
    Anthony J. Avery
    [J]. Drug Safety, 2013, 36 : 199 - 206
  • [3] Public awareness in Wales of the UK Yellow Card scheme for reporting suspected adverse drug reactions
    Bracchi, Robert C.
    Tseliou, Foteini
    Copeland, Lauren
    Routledge, Philip A.
    Thomas, Alison
    Woods, Fiona
    Adams, Alana
    Walker, Jenna
    Jadeja, Mitul
    Atkinson, Mark D.
    Ashfield-Watt, Pauline
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2021, 87 (08) : 3344 - 3348
  • [4] Assessing the usability of methods of public reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK Yellow Card Scheme
    Anderson, Claire
    Gifford, Alison
    Avery, Anthony
    Fortnum, Heather
    Murphy, Elizabeth
    Krska, Janet
    Bond, Christine
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2012, 15 (04) : 433 - 440
  • [5] How Patient Reporters Identify Adverse Drug Reactions A Qualitative Study of Reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme
    Krska, Janet
    Anderson, Claire
    Murphy, Elizabeth
    Avery, Anthony J.
    [J]. DRUG SAFETY, 2011, 34 (05) : 429 - 436
  • [6] The yellow card scheme: Evaluation of patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions
    Ekins-Daukes, S.
    Irvine, D.
    Wise, L.
    Fiddes, S.
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2006, 15 : S105 - S105
  • [7] The Yellow Card Scheme: Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions and Signals they have Generated
    Foy, M.
    Gandhi, S.
    Suri, S.
    Cumber, S.
    Jadeja, M. M.
    [J]. DRUG SAFETY, 2011, 34 (10) : 903 - 903
  • [8] Identifying and managing adverse drug reactions: Qualitative analysis of patient reports to the UK yellow card scheme
    O'Donovan, Bernadine
    Rodgers, Ruth M.
    Cox, Anthony R.
    Krska, Janet
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 88 (07) : 3434 - 3446
  • [9] How Patient Reporters Identify Adverse Drug ReactionsA Qualitative Study of Reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme
    Janet Krska
    Claire Anderson
    Elizabeth Murphy
    Anthony J. Avery
    [J]. Drug Safety, 2011, 34 : 429 - 436
  • [10] Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in the UK A Retrospective Observational Comparison of Yellow Card Reports Submitted by Patients and Healthcare Professionals
    McLernon, David J.
    Bond, Christine M.
    Hannaford, Philip C.
    Watson, Margaret C.
    Lee, Amanda J.
    Hazell, Lorna
    Avery, Anthony
    [J]. DRUG SAFETY, 2010, 33 (09) : 775 - 788